15 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 15. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 24, 2010, 04:08 |
mag |
|
|
| I'm going to guess that it'll probably get struck down. The Court usually seems to rule in this order: Corporations > Federal Government > People > State/Local Government. So, this should be a win for the people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 21:41 |
Creston |
|
|
StingingVelvet wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 18:40:
I hope they hear it because it has a roughly 99% of chance of being ruled unconstitutional by them, same as the other mess of courts that have heard similar legislation.
Maybe then these spotlight craving senators will stop wasting millions on this crap.
They won't. They'll just change three words and try again.
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 20:50 |
MMORPGHoD |
|
|
| If the Supreme Court of the United States allows videos and pictures of dog fights, I'm pretty certain they'll have no problem with violent video games either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 18:40 |
StingingVelvet |
|
|
I hope they hear it because it has a roughly 99% of chance of being ruled unconstitutional by them, same as the other mess of courts that have heard similar legislation.
Maybe then these spotlight craving senators will stop wasting millions on this crap. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 17:05 |
Creston |
|
|
I think senator Leland Yee is a tad optimistic there. The SCOTUS is EXTREMELY defensive of First Amendment rights, and I seriously doubt they're going to suddenly reverse that position in favor of a fucking retarded bill.
Weirder things have happened, but I think this has a very low shot of passing. There hasn't been a single court in the nation that has declared this legal up until now.
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 16:31 |
eRe4s3r |
|
|
| Don't need DRM when the law forbids all adult games from being made |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 15:54 |
Kxmode |
|
|
BobBob wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 13:16:
kxmode wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 12:19:
We gamers have no voice.
We are consumers. Your voice comes out of your wallet. If you don't like a product don't buy it. Simple. No? :|
Not when the publisher doesn't listen, and certainly not when they use lackluster sales coupled with piracy as a reason to add even more draconian DRM. 
But yeah I get your point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "It is possible to synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix. It’s an excimer frozen in its excited state." |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 14:19 |
Cutter |
|
|
And once again...but violent cartoons, TV and movies are ok are they?
We all watched that stuff growing up without becoming violent pyschopaths. I'm more concerned about the psychopaths running big businesses than kids playing violent video games but no one does anything about that, do they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "There are two kinds of people in this world; people who love delis, and people you shouldn’t associate with.” - Damon Runyan |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 13:22 |
Dev |
|
|
NKD wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 12:31:
kxmode wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 12:19:
When is someone going to stand up and champion these issues for us in a courtroom?
When gamers start to care about the issues. They don't. Most gamers just go buy a game, play it, and then go about their lives. They don't care about DRM, and they definitely don't care about politics.
Yeah exactly. Something to keep in mind that for SCOTUS to rule on something, that means someone has to have taken it all the way there. That someone has to have "standing".
So for games, a gamer would have to sue and take it all the way to supreme court. Taking something to supreme court can cost a lot of money, I would guess hundreds of thousands of dollars at the minimum. So you'd have to have a gamer who cared enough and had enough extra cash (or backers with the cash) to take it all the way.
IANAL, and these comments aren't addressed to anyone in particular. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 13:16 |
BobBob |
|
|
kxmode wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 12:19:
We gamers have no voice.
We are consumers. Your voice comes out of your wallet. If you don't like a product don't buy it. Simple. No?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 12:42 |
Kxmode |
|
|
NKD wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 12:31:
They don't care about DRM, and they definitely don't care about politics.
This is not a political issue, it is about customer rights.
This comment was edited on Apr 23, 2010, 13:03. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "It is possible to synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix. It’s an excimer frozen in its excited state." |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 12:31 |
NKD |
|
|
kxmode wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 12:19:
When is someone going to stand up and champion these issues for us in a courtroom?
When gamers start to care about the issues. They don't. Most gamers just go buy a game, play it, and then go about their lives. They don't care about DRM, and they definitely don't care about politics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 12:19 |
Kxmode |
|
|
California's law preventing the sale and rental of excessively violent video games to children, which was ruled unconstitutional in February, 2009
That should always be left to responsible parents to manage!
What the SCOTUS really needs to look at is the law of DRM. It removes a legitimate owner's right to sell a game to someone. DRM also limits a legitimate owner's ability to actually play their game any time they want.
We gamers have no voice. When is someone going to stand up and champion these issues for us in a courtroom? We are legit customers and they're treating us like criminals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "It is possible to synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix. It’s an excimer frozen in its excited state." |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 10:52 |
Dev |
|
|
bleurg...
It always scares me when stuff like this gets to supreme court, because you never know what they are gonna decide and it affects the whole country. There's so much stuff they can screw up.
Stupid california wasting tax dollars on this. First in passing it, then in spending years in court on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: SCOTUS to Rule on CA Game Law |
Apr 23, 2010, 10:37 |
BobBob |
|
|
| How will they prevent children from watching CNN or the History Channel? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
15 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
